However, if its beauty you seek there's been a lot of wonderful poetry written in the last couple millenia, which I read when I seek beauty.
At any rate, the OO features of FB are super simple to learn. The TYPE takes the place (more or less) of all C++'s data structures, and I've heard whispers that soon FB will feature inheritance.
Having followed the development of FB now for a bit, the strategy seems to be to make a free OOP BASIC compiler which is capable of making high quality executables, is backward compat with QBasic, and implements the OO power of modern languages.
Here I don't agree. It was made to be taught ... 40+ years ago. Basic is not good for teaching now. It is not consistent. It is a stack of procedures, each with its own syntax.
Ok - I agree - but FB is good for teaching now, and the #1 reason is because it wouldn't require any money down for a educational establishment to teach to its students. And if uniformity and simulation are a part of your conception of "beauty" then I don't think you should be teaching anyway...
The capability of a procedure to be called in specific/multiple/condition dependent ways is part of what makes BASIC powerful. The mere fact that the syntax is mutable and procedure dependent makes it more similar to natural language than logic based PROLOG or set based (LISP) which more based on what an Academic considers natural as opposed to "Joe the Plumber".
By the way, I have a copy of a LISP interpreter written in FreeBASIC... It's really cool. My LISP scripts can now call other LISP scripts. Yay.
At any rate the conception of beauty you have, I find it rather dubious and frightening.